Twisting what I said, what I read

Published 10:00 pm, Friday, November 2, 2007

I support burning churches -- especially landmark ones. Why? Because I hate Christians. And God. And America. Also I have a tendency to confuse art with arson.

These are things I learned about myself from reading an entry titled, "Seattle PI Columnist: 'I Understand' Burning 'Oppressive' Churches" on a conservative blog. I also learned that my last name is spelled "Parvez" and that I haven't changed a hair for seven years. (A tip to Newsbusters: You want to use a photo of me wearing an Islamic Hijaab. It would better serve your purpose).

Rewind to Tuesday, when I popped an item on the Big Blog about an alleged arsonist:

"Paul Addis, the guy who bummed out thousands of burners by torching The Man before festival participants were ready for it, was arrested Sunday on suspicion of trying to torch a historic cathedral in San Francisco....On the one hand, I can understand the power of the image to someone who sees the church as an oppressive institution. On the other hand...it's still arson. And given how fires can get out of hand, there's a chance that this little stunt could have damaged other property and hurt some folks."

Somehow, trying to understand what Addis was thinking (no, I don't really think he's an artist) equals "religious hatemongering" -- even when considering the image, not the reality, of a burning church. Welcome to America, land of the disappearing in-between, where things are increasingly black or white, and discussions must be kept straight and literal -- none of that filthy tongue-in-cheek stuff, please. We must limit the debate to just this guy and Christianity. Could any religious institution be seen as oppressive? Of course not. What about the strong tradition in the artistic world of defacing religious icons and symbols (example: Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ")? Repent, heathen, and witness a nation's loss of intellectual dexterity. Speaking of mental rigor mortis...I heard Bill O'Reilly got his loofah in a bunch over my post.

Yes, for some reason (slow news day?), the national conservative media cared about a blog post with few comments attached to it by Wednesday. Stilll, when I was invited onto that "Hannity & Colmes" show on Fox News -- they were doing a segment on the blog item that night -- I figured I should participate -- and I did, via telephone. It went well, I think, and Colmes even sent me a nice note the next day.

The issue seemed to be threefold. First, that I'd condoned an alleged arsonist's actions by virtue of trying to figure out what was going though his head. Second, that I seemed more concerned about nearby homes catching fire and people dying than an empty church burning. And finally, that I could understand how someone might see the church as a symbol of oppression. Anyone living in this millennium should be able to grasp that final point to some extent, especially given how religious values are leaking into our legislation (see: stem cell research, gay rights, abstinence-only sex education and the gutting of Planned Parenthood funding, etc.). Some, apparently, can't.

Earlier in the day, I'd hoped to meet up with my Newsbusters critic on 710 KIRO host Dori Monson's show, but, alas, he couldn't be reached. As it turns out, he didn't have to be there because Monson, who seemed to think I was taking a lot of heat (um, no) spoke for him. It was quite funny.

Laaaaaaaadies and gentlemen, in this corner, talk radio host Dorrrrrri Monnnnnnnson, fighting the good fight for all of Christendom. In the other corner, Deeeeeeeeeeee Parvaaaaaaaaaz for the Left-Wing Church Burners of America!

One of his listeners later called in to say that he didn't believe me when I said that my mother is a Catholic, my uncle is a Sufi Muslim and my brother is a Jew. And I thought I was keeping things simple by not bringing up The Mormon Period (See? It's complicated). Given the variety of sacred faiths observed by my family members, my hatemongering schedule would be packed. Fortunately, I'm not that person. Or do I have to be? I mean, are we allowed to consider a critical view of something without hatemongering, or has that option been removed from the table?